[wp-hackers] GPL/WP-compatible icon sets?

[Otto]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Alexander Beutl <xel at netgra.de> wrote:
>  Both licences are copyleft and want the *whole work* to be under the same
>  license. You can not put the CC-BY-SA under GPL nor other way round. So you
>  can not do that.

There's no problem on CC's side, obviously.

But where, exactly, do you see the GPL defining what a "whole work" is?

Can you give me a reasonable argument that the theme is a derivative
of the icons because it references them as external files? That
*executable code* is a derivative of *easily replacable graphics
files*? It's referencing them externally to itself.

If a GPL'd program uses a non-free library, can it be released? Gnu
says yes, although they waffle about it a bit:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs

Here's the thing, he wrote the theme, therefore he is the copyright
holder to that theme. Since he derived the theme from GPL code, he's
obligated to release it as GPL if he releases it at all. But the
"theme" does not necessarily include the icons. He didn't create
those. He doesn't hold copyright on those. And his theme is certainly
not a derivative of those. But their terms say that he can
redistribute them (ShareAlike), so he's perfectly fine.

So what if they are not distributed independently? My point is that
when you start arguing that you can bypass the GPL by making two ZIP
files instead of one, then you're talking crazy. The GPL is not that
simplistic.

-Otto